BERRIAN v. OUBRE

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING 41 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 37 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/1/2015. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MICHAEL BERRIAN,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Warden SHEILA OUBRE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-163 (MTT)

ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends granting
Defendant Willie Wells’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) because the Plaintiff
has failed to show that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether
Defendant Wells was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to the
Plaintiff.1 (Doc. 41). The Plaintiff has not objected to the Recommendation. The Court
has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is
ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, Defendant Wells’s motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 37) is GRANTED.
1

There is evidence that prior to being attacked the Plaintiff did not feel safe in his dormitory
because he had an altercation with his attacker and witnessed his attacker assault another
inmate. (Doc. 37-3 at 42:6-43:4, 48:7-49:5, 51:10-52:10, 64:14-65:4). There is also evidence
that the Plaintiff told Defendant Wells he wanted protective custody and to be taken out of his
dormitory because he did not feel comfortable or safe. (Doc. 37-3 at 49:9-50:18, 65:9-25).
However, the Plaintiff has not produced evidence to support his allegation that Defendant Wells
knew his dormitory was “unaccep[tably] dangerous,” (Doc. 30 at 2), such that the Plaintiff’s
requests made Defendant Wells “aware of specific facts from which an inference could be
drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed].” Carter v. Galloway, 352 F.3d 1346,
1349 (11th Cir. 2003); see Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1583 (11th Cir. 1995)
(holding a plaintiff need not show that the defendant knew “precisely who would attack whom,”
but only that the defendant “had subjective knowledge of a generalized, substantial risk of
serious harm from inmate violence” (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844 (1994))).

SO ORDERED, this 1st day of September, 2015.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT